Skip to content
Charvis Thornton
Charvis Thornton

#22Charvis Thornton

Charvis Thornton is a Committee Back for Louisiana Tech.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

  • Usage share (volume)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Charvis Thornton's projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2023 Production

Rushing
270 Rush yards1 Rush TD55 Carries4.9 Yards/carry
Receiving
7 Receptions28 Rec yards1 Rec TD4.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume25
  • Explosiveness38
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving39
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local deals.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.4600.46Wk 1 vs SMU: -0.46 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Northwestern State: -0.04 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs North Texas: +0.29 EPA/play3Wk 6 vs Western Kentucky: +0.08 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.14 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs New Mexico State: -0.00 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Liberty: -0.20 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Sam Houston: -0.41 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Jacksonville State: -0.02 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
0vsFlorida InternationalW22-17-21.28516.40
1@SMUL14-3810.18243.00220-0.46
2vsNorthwestern StateW51-217385.41-0.04
3vsNorth TexasL37-40-6.74184.500.29
6vsWestern KentuckyL28-35-2.04225.500.08
7@Middle TennesseeL23-31-9.56223.7021310.14
9vsNew Mexico StateL24-27-1.812383.202110-0.00
10@LibertyL30-568.0242.00-0.20
11vsSam HoustonL27-42-13.824824.00120-0.41
12@Jacksonville StateL17-56-1.6252.50-0.02

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.9%
Passing plays
1.9%
Rushing plays
17.4%
Standard downs
9.4%
Passing downs
7.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.16
Passing downs
0.47
Pass / Rush EPA
0.14 / -0.01

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.